4 ms·

It seems highly foolish from a marketing perspective for the artist too. I don't see how more people copying the artist style would not increase the value of o

• jonhohle 4y ago
  It depends on whether or not the “style” is associated with the original artist or if the derivatives usurp the original. e.g. Ask 10 random people who wrote the song “Hurt” and 9 out of 10 will probably say Johnny Cash.
• sct202 4y ago
  It's not foolish at all. There's no value prop for an artist to advertise their work in the model as 1 of 400+ million. SD doesn't tell you anything about the art that inspired the output, no one will ever know the artists work was ever used, so this 'exposure' is as good as $0.
  • rnjesus 4y ago
    this isn’t quite true. i was playing around with sd, and whilst browsing styles on a site where different artists’ names were compared using the same prompt (“[artist name] painting of flowers”, for example), a particular artist’s style stood out to me. i ended up buying a print from them. sd might not directly include this info in its outputs, but it really is free marketing for some (in fact, i suspect a lot of artists are probably flattered for being included by name in the dataset, but some are riding the waxing wave of outrage for the free media exposure)